Literature DB >> 14763692

Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Lars B Engesaeter1, Stein Atle Lie, Birgitte Espehaug, Ove Furnes, Stein Emil Vollset, Leif Ivar Havelin.   

Abstract

We studied the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis, systemically and in bone cement, on the revision rate of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-2001. To have comparable groups, only THAs performed because of primary osteoarthritis, using cemented implants with documented good results, and high-viscosity cement were included. If systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had been given, only operations with cephalosporin or penicillin were selected. Cox-estimated survival relative revision risks (RR) are presented with adjustment for differences among groups in gender, age, cement brand, type of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, type of prosthesis, type of operating room, and duration of the operation. Of 22,170 THAs studied, 696 THAs (3.1%) were revised, 440 (2.0%) for aseptic loosening and 102 (0.5%) for deep infection. We found the lowest risk of revision when the antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the cement (15,676 THAs). Compared to this combined regime, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis only systemically (5,960 THAs) had a 1.4 times higher revision rate with all reasons for revision as endpoint (p = 0.001), 1.3 times higher with aseptic loosening (p = 0.02) and 1.8 times higher with infection as the endpoint (p = 0.01). With the combined antibiotic regime, the results were better if antibiotics were given 4 times on the day of surgery (2,194 THAs), as compared to once (1,424 THAs) (p < 0.001), twice (2,680 THAs) (p < 0.001), or 3 times (5,522 THAs) (p = 0.02). Those who received systemic prophylaxis a single day 1, 2 or 3 times, as compared to 4 times, had a revision rate 1.8-3.5 times higher with all reasons for revision as endpoint, 1.5-3.1 times higher with aseptic loosening, and 2.7-6.8 times higher with infection. When we compared systemic prophylaxis 4 times in 1 day, no further improvement resulted in those given systemic prophylaxis for 2 days (1,928 THAs) or 3 days (717 THAs). In a subset of data including only the Charnley prosthesis, we obtained similar results. This observational study shows that the best results were recorded when antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the bone cement, and if the systemic antibiotic was given 4 times on the day of surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14763692     DOI: 10.1080/00016470310018135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand        ISSN: 0001-6470


  90 in total

1.  Bacterial pathogen-associated molecular patterns stimulate biological activity of orthopaedic wear particles by activating cognate Toll-like receptors.

Authors:  Edward M Greenfield; Michelle A Beidelschies; Joscelyn M Tatro; Victor M Goldberg; Amy G Hise
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 2.  Novel approaches to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of medical device-associated infections.

Authors:  Paschalis Vergidis; Robin Patel
Journal:  Infect Dis Clin North Am       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.982

3.  A new concept of gentamicin loaded HAP/TCP bone substitute for prophylactic action: in vitro release validation.

Authors:  Frédéric Laurent; Aurélien Bignon; Jérémy Goldnadel; Jérome Chevalier; Gilbert Fantozzi; Eric Viguier; Thierry Roger; Georges Boivin; Daniel Hartmann
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 3.896

4.  A preliminary study of the release of quaternary ammonium antimicrobial compounds from acrylic bone cement.

Authors:  Manojgna Mathey; Vijaya Surana; Mark Edwards; John W Nicholson
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 3.896

5.  Does adding antibiotics to cement reduce the need for early revision in total knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Eric Bohm; Naisu Zhu; Jing Gu; Nicole de Guia; Cassandra Linton; Tammy Anderson; David Paton; Michael Dunbar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for total joint replacement surgery: results of a survey of Canadian orthopedic surgeons.

Authors:  Justin de Beer; Danielle Petruccelli; Coleman Rotstein; Brad Weening; Katie Royston; Mitch Winemaker
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  A new concept of gentamicin loaded HAP/TCP bone substitute for prophylactic action: in vivo pharmacokinetic study.

Authors:  E Viguier; A Bignon; F Laurent; D Goehrig; G Boivin; J Chevalier
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 3.896

Review 8.  Microbial resistance related to antibiotic-loaded bone cement: a historical review.

Authors:  Lucy C Walker; Paul Baker; Richard Holleyman; David Deehan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Inadequate timing of prophylactic antibiotics in orthopedic surgery. We can do better.

Authors:  Anna Stefánsdóttir; Otto Robertsson; Annette W-Dahl; Sverrir Kiernan; Pelle Gustafson; Lars Lidgren
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Prophylactic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: Justified or not?

Authors:  Amit K Srivastav; Biren Nadkarni; Shekhar Srivastav; Vivek Mittal; Shekhar Agarwal
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.